All Sites: C3 Survey Report - NORC.org

All Sites: C3 Survey Report Report
PRESENTED TO: Population Change Learning Community
PRESENTED BY: NORC at the University of Chicago Margaret Hargreaves Senior Fellow 4350 East/West Highway Bethesda, MD 20814 (978) 263-1284
OCTOBER, 2020
PAGE | I
Overview ............................................................................................................................... 5 Survey Findings .................................................................................................................... 6 Domain-Specific Findings ..................................................................................................... 7
Section 1: Introduction ............................................................................................................... 8 Population Change Learning Community ............................................................................. 8 Assessing Collective Community Capacity ........................................................................... 9 Population Learning Community Initiatives ......................................................................... 10
Section 2: Survey Respondents .............................................................................................. 11 Respondent Characteristics ................................................................................................ 11 Respondent Areas of Activity .............................................................................................. 12
Section 3: Network Characteristics ......................................................................................... 13 Network Connections .......................................................................................................... 13
Section 4: Overview and Domain 1 Findings ......................................................................... 15 Overview of Domain Analyses ............................................................................................ 15 Domain 1: Collaboration to create and practice a shared vision ........................................ 16
Domain, Subscale, Network- and Community-Specific Findings .............................. 16 Item-Specific Findings ............................................................................................... 17
Section 5: Domain 2 Findings .................................................................................................. 18 Domain 2: Measurement and use of data to guide community change efforts ................... 18
Section 6: Domain 3 Findings .................................................................................................. 20 Domain 3: Active engagement in community change efforts .............................................. 20
Section 7: Domain 4 Findings .................................................................................................. 21 Domain 4: Distributed leadership of equity-focused community change efforts ................. 21
NORC | Collective Community Capacity Survey: Surrey Findings
PAGE | II
Section 8: Domain 5 Findings .................................................................................................. 23 Domain 5: Effective, innovative community change programs, policies, and practices ...... 23
Section 9: Domain 6 Findings .................................................................................................. 25 Domain 6: Infrastructure to Support Sustain, and Spread Community Change ................. 25
Domain Subscale, Network- and Community-Specific Findings ............................... 25 Item-Specific Findings ............................................................................................... 26
Appendix: Population Change C3 Survey Tables .................................................................. 28 Section 2: Demographics Tables ........................................................................................ 28 Section 3: Social Network Table ......................................................................................... 30 Section 4: Domain 1 Tables ................................................................................................ 30 Section 5: Domain 2 Tables ................................................................................................ 33 Section 6: Domain 3 Tables ................................................................................................ 39 Section 7: Domain 4 Tables ................................................................................................ 42 Section 8: Domain 5 Tables ................................................................................................ 47 Section 9: Domain 6 Tables ................................................................................................ 51
PAGE | III
List of Figures Figure 1: Overall Scale Mean by Domain and Site ................................................................ 6
Figure 2: Survey Participant Characteristics Overall ............................................................ 12
Figure 3: Tenure of Survey Participants Overall .................................................................. 12
Figure 4: Areas of Activity Overall ........................................................................................ 13
Figure 5: Box and Whiskers Plot Example ........................................................................... 15
Figure 6: Domain 1: Overall Domain, Subscale, Network- and Community-Specific Findings ................................................................................................................ 16
Figure 7: Domain 1: Item-Specific Findings ......................................................................... 17
PAGE | IV
List of Tables Table 1: Site Survey Response Rates ................................................................................ 11
Table A-1: Network Affiliation of Respondents ....................................................................... 28
Table A-2: Areas of Activity .................................................................................................... 29
Table A-3: Network Connections ............................................................................................ 30
Table A-4: Domain 1: Overall Domain, Subscale, Network- and Community-Specific Findings ................................................................................................................ 30
Table A-5: Domain 1: Item-specific Findings .......................................................................... 31
Table A-6: Domain 2: Overall Domain, Subscale, Network and Community-Specific Findings ................................................................................................................ 33
POPULUATION CHANGE ALL SITES: C3 SURVEY REPORT | 5
Executive Summary
The Population Change Learning Community (Learning Community) was formed in 2014 to help local practitioners support place-based initiatives. Rather than implementing stand-alone programs or projects, place-based initiatives use a more holistic approach to improve outcomes at a population level.
The Learning Community sought to understand how best to organize and support the work of multi-sector place-based endeavors. Learning Community members co-created an 18-month process of case study development to capture the experiences of the Learning Community sites. In 2018, the Learning Community members completed nine case studies.
Building off the findings of the case studies, the Learning Community focused on measuring collective community capacity. In 2017, the Learning Community established a Collective Community Capacity Workgroup that partnered with Meg Hargreaves, developer of the ACEs and Resilience Collective Community Capacity survey, to review and adapt the ARC3 survey for the Learning Community. The results was the Collective Community Capacity (C3) survey.
The C3 survey is a valid and reliable assessment tool with a strong evidence base. The survey reflects the practitioner experiences of the Population Change case studies, the APPI community capacity building literature review, and the tested validity and reliability of the ARC3 survey. Additional analyses and refinements of the C3 survey were completed in June 2020. The result is the C3 Survey 2.0, which supercedes previous surveys.
The ARC3 survey’s 11 measurement domains are grouped as individual subscales within the C3 survey’s six composite domains of collective capacity.
1. Collaboration to create and practice a shared vision
2. Measurement and use of data to guide community change efforts
3. Active engagement in community change efforts
4. Distributed leadership in equity-focused community change efforts
5. Effective, innovative community change programs, policies, and practices
6. Infrastructure to support, sustain, and spread community change has two subscales
Survey Findings
Collective community capacity is the networked ability of local individuals and organizations to work together to create community-wide change. Collective capacity to impact a community is not the accumulation of individual coalition members’ abilities. It is also not monolithic, but is comprised of many interrelated capacities that give networks of community and institutional partners the power to support, sustain, and spread systemic community change.
This report summarizes the results of the C3 survey across all seven Population Change Learning Community sites. Other C3 reports identified the relative strengths and weaknesses of individual sites; this report presents C3 survey findings that are averaged across sites. The site-specific reports confirmed that each site had its own unique combination of strengths and challenges. This “all-sites” report looks at patterns of capacity shared across the sites. While site-specific scores vary within each domain, (shown by the individual dots in Figure 1), average (mean) overall scores also vary across the domains (the orange vertical lines in Figure 1).
Across the sites, the highest mean domain scores were for Domain 1 (4.079), and for Domain 3 (3.906) on a scale of 1 - 5.1 The lowest mean score was for Domain 6 (3.107). Overall, the sites had “a great deal” of capacity to collaborate to create and practice a shared vision and to actively engage in community change efforts. But, on average, they only “somewhat” had the infrastructure to support, sustain, and spread community change.
Figure 1: Overall Scale Mean by Domain and Site
1 Mean scores range from 1 to 5. 1 = Not at all, 2 = Hardly at all, 3 = Somewhat, 4 = A great deal, and 5 = Completely.
These all-site findings have implications for the community capacity-building field. Communities may have enough collective capacity to bring together and actively engage individuals and organizations in creating and practicing a shared vision. However, without sufficient infrastructure to support, sustain, spread community change, place-based initiatives are less likely to achieve community-wide impact. Other program and policy strategies may also need to be leveraged at multiple (organization, system, community, state, and national) levels to amplify and reinforce the success of place-based initiatives.
Domain-Specific Findings
The Population Change Domain 1: Collaboration in create and practice a shared vision was the highest-rated capacity across the seven sites. Across all seven sites, the overall mean domain score was 4.079 on a scale of 1 – 5.2 The reliability of this measure is very good with a Cronbach’s alpha scale score of 0.867. The sites reported high levels of collaboration to develop and practice a shared vision. Their collaboration included providing community input and support for their vision and developing cross-sector partnerships to achieve their shared vision and fill local service gaps.
Domain 2: Measurement and use of data to guide community change efforts was the fourth highest-rated capacity across the seven sites. Across all seven sites, the overall mean domain score was 3.737 on a scale of 1 – 5. The reliability of this measure is excellent with a Cronbach’s alpha scale score of 0.946. The sites used data in multiple ways. Three sites reported using data to identify issues, service needs, or service gaps in their communities. Three sites reported sharing data in accessible formats. Two sites reported using data in community problem-solving processes. Others sites engaged their community in interpreting data and informing decision makers.
Domain 3: Active engagement in community change efforts was the second-highest rated capacity across the seven sites. Across all seven sites, the overall mean domain score was 3.906 on a scale of 1 – 5. The reliability of this measure is very good with a Cronbach’s alpha scale score of 0.875. The sites used several strategies to engage community members. Six sites hosted community events, three sites reported collaborating on network projects, and two conducted targeted outreach, and one site focused on providing opportunities to community members to lead network projects.
Domain 4: Distributed leadership of equity-focused community change efforts was the third- highest rated capacity across the seven sites. Across all seven sites, the overall mean domain score was 3.744 on a scale of 1 – 5. The reliability of this measure is excellent with a Cronbach’s alpha scale score of 0.927. The sites reported a wide range of methods for distributing the leadership of their community change efforts. Examples included sharing the leadership of facilitating meetings and decision making, raising social awareness and building political will to address local issues, and engaging their tribal community in network meetings.
2 Mean scores range from 1 to 5. 1 = Not at all, 2 = Hardly at all, 3 = Somewhat, 4 = A great deal, and 5 = Completely.
Domain 5: Effective, innovative community change programs, policies, and practices was the fifth- highest rated capacity across the seven sites. Across all seven sites, the overall mean domain score was 3.641 on a scale of 1 – 5. The reliability of this measure is very good with a Cronbach’s alpha scale score of 0.875. The sites reported using several methods to promote community change initiatives and programs, including recruiting network members to join local initiatives, aligning community services with the network’s vision, and developing early intervention programs for children and families, including those reported to child welfare services.
Domain 6: Infrastructure to Infrastructure to support, sustain, and spread community change was the lowest-rated capacity across the seven sites. Across all seven sites, the overall mean domain score was 3.107 on a scale of 1 – 5. The reliability of this measure is very good with a Cronbach’s alpha scale score of 0.897. Although the sites reported working on scaling up their efforts, this goal has not yet been achieved. The sites most frequently mentioned strategies for recruiting volunteers for community rebuilding days and expanding community trainings for local leaders, schools, and front-line workers.
Section 1: Introduction
Population Change Learning Community
The Population Change Learning Community (Learning Community) was formed in 2014 to help local practitioners support place-based initiatives. Rather than implementing stand-alone programs or projects, place-based initiatives use a more holistic approach to improve outcomes at a population level. Such initiatives support collective action to respond to local inequities and poor outcomes, thus building a collective capacity to achieve positive outcomes for those residing in the focal community.
Through the Population Change Learning Community, practitioners, funders, and researchers are learning how to facilitate community change. Supported by the Doris Duke Charitable Foundation and coordinated by the Population Change Institute, with evaluation assistance from NORC at the University of Chicago, this partnership provides a forum for shared learning and knowledge exchange among practitioners, researchers, and funders who seek to understand the roles, functions, and capacities needed to support collective community change processes.
Community initiatives across the United States and in Canada are members of the Population Change Learning Community. The sites include: R.O.C.K. Mat-Su (Mat-Su Borough, AK); the Magnolia Community Initiative (Los Angeles, CA); Brighter Futures (Hartford, CT); Kkua Kalihi Valley Comprehensive Family Services, KKV (Honolulu, HI); Community Studios (Sarasota and St. Petersburg, FL); Vital Village Network (Boston, MA); Brownsville Partnership (Brooklyn, NY); Growing Together (Tulsa, OK); Thunder Valley Community Development Corporation (Pine Ridge Reservation, SD); Eastside Community – United Way (San Antonio, TX); Amani Neighborhood (Milwaukee, WI); and Avenues of Change – Guilford West (Surrey, British Columbia).
Other researchers and funders are also Learning Community members. They include: the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston; the Wisdom Exchange - Boston Medical Center; Working Cities Challenge – The Hartford Foundation for Public Giving; The Community Foundation of North Texas; and the University of Wisconsin – Extension, Milwaukee County, WI.
Assessing Collective Community Capacity
During the first phase of the Population Change Learning Community (2014 – 2018), the members sought to understand how best to organize and support the work of multi-sector place-based endeavors. Learning Community members co-created an 18-month process of case study development to capture the experiences of the Learning Community sites. These case studies explored the roles, functions, and operating structures used by the sites’ backbone organizations, intermediaries, integrators, and lead agencies to effectively support, sustain, and resource their initiatives. In 2018, the Learning Community members completed nine case studies; seven are available through the Population Change Institute website (www.populationchange.org).
Building off the findings from the case studies around six collective capacities, the Learning Community wanted to focus on developing a way to measure collective community capacity. In 2017, the Learning Community established a Collective Community Capacity Workgroup that partnered with Margaret (Meg) Hargreaves, a NORC Senior Fellow and developer of the ACEs and Resilience Collective Community Capacity (ARC3) survey, to review and adapt the ARC3 survey for the Population Change Learning Community. The ARC3 survey was originally developed for the ACEs Public-Private Initiative (APPI), (a Washington state consortium of public agencies, private foundations, and community networks led by Casey Family Programs) as part of a rigorous evaluation of five community-based networks in Washington. Based on an extensive review of community capacity building models and measures, the ARC3 survey was developed, pilot tested, revised, and implemented in the five study sites over a two-year period. The survey is published in the final APPI evaluation report, measurement white paper, and journal articles (Verbitsky-Savitz et al. 2016).
In 2017, Hargreaves worked with the Learning Community to compare the six capacities that emerged from the Population Change case studies and the ARC3 survey’s measurement domains. By December 2017, the group had finished adapting the ARC3 survey to measure the range of collaborative functions, governance structures, and goals of the network and systems building approaches used by the Population Change sites. In the adapted survey, the ARC3 measurement domains and questions were retained, either in their original form or with some editing. The survey was expanded from 35 closed-ended items to a total of 49 closed-ended items with six open-ended questions.
Re-named the Collective Community Capacity (C3) Survey, the survey is collectively owned and managed by NORC, the Children’s Bureau of Southern California as fiscal sponsor of the Population Change Institute, and Casey Family Programs. Additional analyses and refinements of the C3 survey were completed in June 2020, creating the C3 Survey 2.0, which will be used in future sites.
This report summarizes the survey findings from all seven Population Learning Community initiatives. Site-specific reports have also been produced. This survey was made possible in part through the collaboration of Casey Family Programs, whose mission is to provide, improve, and ultimately prevent the need for foster care. This survey report was made possible through funding from the Doris Duke Charitable Foundation. The findings and conclusions of this report are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the survey’s funders.
The C3 survey is a valid and reliable assessment tool, with a strong evidence base. The survey reflects the practitioner experiences of the Population Change case studies, the APPI community capacity building research review, and the tested validity and reliability of the ARC3 survey. The ARC3 survey’s 11 measurement domains are grouped as individual subscales within the C3 survey’s six composite domains of collective capacity.
1. Domain 1: Collaboration to create and practice a shared vision. This includes two subscales – (a) shared goals and (b) community cross-sector partnerships. Network properties are measured through social network analysis metrics.
2. Domain 2: Measurement and use of data to guide community change efforts. This includes two subscales: (a) community change process and (b) data use for improvement and accountability.
3. Domain 3: Active engagement in community change efforts. This has one subscale: diverse engagement and empowerment.
4. Domain 4: Distributed leadership in equity-focused community change efforts. This encompasses three subscales: (a) leadership, (b) communication, and (c) equity focus.
5. Domain 5: Effective, innovative community change programs, policies, and practices. This contains one subscale: multi-level community change strategies.
6. Domain 6: Infrastructure to support, sustain, and spread community change. This includes two subscales: (a) scale of work and (b) infrastructure.
Population Learning Community Initiatives
Seven Population Learning Community sites surveyed their network members in 2019. During the second phase of the Pop Change Initiative (2018-2022), the C3 survey was tested in the Pop Change sites. In 2019, seven sites volunteered to take the survey; other sites opted to be surveyed later in the initiative. NORC used Qualtrics, an online survey tool, to program and implement the C3 survey. The survey was customized for each of the seven site-specific initiatives to include: (a) its vision, (b) its community of focus, and (c) its network name.
The fielding of the survey began as early as July 11, 2019 in three sites. The last survey closed on March 16, 2020. The survey was released to a sample of 189 network members across the seven sites. A total of 170 people responded to the survey, achieving a response rate of 89.9 percent (see Table 1). Respondents
did not necessarily complete every item in the survey. Consequently, the response rate varies across specific survey items.
Table 1: Site Survey Response Rates
Site Network Name Survey Fielded Sample
Size Number of
Respondents Response Rate (%)
Vital Village Network July 29, 2019 to February 19, 2020
37 30 81.08
Brooklyn, New York
15 14 93.3
Los Angeles, California
Magnolia Community Initiative
41 36 87.8
Mat-su Borough, Arkansas
36 31 86.1
25 25 100
San Antonio, Texas
Dual Generation Partnership
14 13 92.9
Surrey, British Colombia
Children’s Partnership
21 21 100
Respondent Characteristics
Nearly all survey respondents were affiliated with an organization. Ninety-one percent of respondents across all survey sites reported belonging to an organization; four percent reported not belonging to an organization and a further 4.7 percent did not respond to this item (see Appendix Table A-1).
Network members comprised the majority of respondents. Of the respondents surveyed, more than two-thirds (68.24 percent) identified as members of the network. Two in five respondents (40 percent) identified as community members. Over a quarter of respondents (28.8 percent) identified as network leadership; only eight percent indicated that they were network staff (see Figure 2 and Appendix Table A-1).
Figure 2: Survey Participant Characteristics Overall
The length of time that respondents had been involved in the network varied between six months to over ten years. When asked how many years respondents had been involved with their respective network, their answers ranged from less than six months to over ten years. Just over 40 percent of respondents (41.1 percent) reported 3 to 6 years of involvement. Approximately one in six respondents (16.5 percent) reported involvement in their network for 10 years or more (see Figure 3 and Appendix Table 1).
Figure 3: Tenure of Survey Participants Overall
Respondent Areas of Activity
Population Change survey respondents represent a wide range of sectors and activity areas. All network respondents worked in at least one of four main sectors: (1) education and training, (2) law enforcement and legal systems, (3) health and social services, and (4) family assistance. The highest numbers of respondents reported involvement in three areas of activity: (1) community organizing or development, (2) early childhood education, and (3) social services. In contrast, philanthropy was the least reported area of activity; only 17 respondents (10 percent) stated that they worked in philanthropy (see Figure 4 and Appendix Table A-2).
Figure 4: Areas of Activity Overall
Section 3: Network Characteristics
Network Connections
Within the networks, members tend to be sparsely to moderately connected to one another. Density is the total number of edges (links) connecting nodes (organizations or individuals) in the network divided by the total number of possible edges for a network with the same number of organizations. A high density indicates collaboration in the network, but it is dubious to compare density scores between networks with different numbers of nodes. Across the seven sites, the density scores ranged from 0.15 to 0.47. A density score of 0.15 indicates that the number of edges in the network is equal to 15% of the maximal number of edges. This is fairly low and it indicates that organizations in a network are not inclined to report strong relationships with one another. Four of the seven networks scored less than or equal to 0.25. These are moderate scores, and indicates that within networks organizations are inclined to report moderately strong relationships with one another.
Within the networks, reciprocal connections are common. Reciprocity is the probability (between 0 and 1) that there will be an edge from Organization A to Organization B if there is an edge in the reverse direction (from Organization B to Organization A). High reciprocity implies that organizations often have similar views on their level of collaboration. Low reciprocity implies that organizations often have dissimilar views on their level of collaboration, or that their interaction may have been one-sided. Across the seven sites, the reciprocity scores ranged from 0.36 to 0.63. A reciprocity score of 0.36 indicates that 36 percent of the connections in the network are reciprocated and implies that organizations in the network may have differing views on the extent of their collaboration. A reciprocity score of 0.63 indicates that 63 percent of connections in the network are reciprocated and implies that organizations in the network often have similar views on the extent of their collaboration.
The networks have a moderate to strong propensity to form tightly knit collaborative subgroups of three or more organizations. Transitivity (also known as the transitivity coefficient or the clustering coefficient) is a measure of how strongly clustered, or “tight-knit,” the network is. It is the probability (between 0 and 1) that a set of three organizations will all be connected to one another by an edge if there are at least two edges between them. High transitivity implies a high propensity for strong subgroups to form in the network, which implies greater levels of trust and shared norms in the network. Across the seven sites, the transitivity scores ranged from 0.41 to 0.69. A transitivity score of 0.41 implies that the network is somewhat inclined to form collaborative subgroups, while a score of 0.69 indicates that the network is solid tendencies to form collaborative subgroups.
The networks are not highly centralized. A network’s degree of centralization describes the variation in the number of connections for each organization. It is a scaled measure (from 0 to 1) of the total difference between the number of edges for the most highly connected organization and the number of edges for all other organizations. A degree centralization near one indicates more hierarchy and less variation in the number of connections per organization; connections tend go toward or come from a few “core” organizations. A degree of centralization near zero implies more uniformity in the number of connections per node, and consequently collaborative relationships are shared throughout the network. Across the seven sites, the degree of centralization ranged from 0.26 to 0.4. A degree of centralization score of 0.26 indicates that, although there are a few “core” organizations with many connections, they do not dominate network activity overall. A score of 0.4 indicates that there are a few “core” organizations with significantly more connections than the average organization; however, the “core” organizations do not dominate the network activity. Across all seven networks, connections tend to be out spread across organizations.
Section 4: Overview and Domain 1 Findings
Overview of Domain Analyses
Sections 4 through 9 present findings of domain, subscale, and item-specific analyses. For each domain, mean scores (averages across survey participants) are reported at the domain, subscale, and individual item level across all seven Pop Change sites. Each domain contains network-specific and community-specific questions. These questions are grouped into categories and included in the analyses. Mean scores range from 1 to 5: 1 = Not at all, 2 = Hardly at all, 3 = Somewhat, 4 = A great deal, and 5 = Completely. Domain and subscale findings are analyzed for all who responded to those questions. The item-specific findings include the number of “not applicable and valid skips”, “don’t know” responses, and non-responses. In the appendix, technical tables provide more detail.
We use “box-and-whiskers” plots to display the domain, subscale, network-specific, and community- specific results for all Pop Change sites. The mean (a dotted vertical line) represents the average across all sites. For each domain, the “box” (i.e., the grey area) represents the interquartile range of the distribution of scale scores of all respondents across all Pop Change sites (excluding “don’t know” and “not applicable” responses). The bars bounding the box denote the lower (i.e., the first) and the upper (i.e., the third) quartiles of all Pop Change respondent scores. For example, 25 percent of all Pop Change respondents reported scale scores to the left of the box, 25 percent of all Pop Change respondents reported scale scores to the right of the box, and 50 percent reported scale scores that fell inside the box (see Figure 5).
Figure 5: Box and Whiskers Plot Example
Domain 1: Collaboration to create and practice a shared vision
Domain 1 is a multifaceted concept, with two subscales measuring shared goals and community cross-sector partnerships. Many collective action and community organizing frameworks include a shared vision for change. For example, one of the five core elements of FSG’s Collective Impact framework is the commitment of actors from different sectors to a common agenda, including a shared understanding of the problem and joint approach to its solution. The Pop Change case studies describe how to use a shared vision to support community change, including creating broad community goals as an umbrella for synergistic strategies.
The credibility and power of communities to leverage population-level change depends, in part, on their cross-sector collaborative capacity. Cross-sector collaboration involves the ability to make decisions and take action with other organizations within and across sectors. It requires strengthening or developing new partnerships to advocate for and influence the authorization, funding, and implementation of new policies, practices, and programs. The Pop Change case studies reported strategies for bringing people together for collective action. These strategies included motivating people to work together to achieve North Star goals.
Domain, Subscale, Network- and Community-Specific Findings
On items measuring Domain 1 (collaboration to create and practice a shared vision), the average overall scale score for all Population Change sites was 4.079 (s.d. = 0.580). On the “partnership” subscale, the average Pop Change scale score was 4.003 (s.d. = 0.628). Similarly, on the “shared goals” subscale, the average scale score across all Pop Change sites was 4.122 (s.d. = 0.601) (see Figure 6 and Appendix Table A-4).
Figure 6: Domain 1: Overall Domain, Subscale, Network- and Community-Specific Findings
Item-Specific Findings
Most network members trust each other to work together and believe that, together, they can make a difference. More than 80 percent (83.5) of survey respondents agreed at least “somewhat” that members of their network have trust in each other to work together when it counts, including 70 percent who agreed “completely” or “a great deal.” Similarly, 89 percent of survey respondents agreed at least “somewhat” that members of their network believe that together they can make a difference in ways that are related to vision, including 81 percent who agreed “completely” or “a great deal.” Seven percent of survey respondents did not respond to these items (see Figure 7 and Appendix Table A-5).
Nearly all network members believe that the community has many partnerships that work across sectors. Nearly 9 in 10 survey respondents (86.5 percent) agreed at least “somewhat” that their community has many partnerships that work across sectors (such as education, health, justice, housing, and social services) to support their network’s vision. Seven percent did not respond to this item and nearly four percent indicated “didn’t know”, “not applicable”, or skipped the item for other reasons.
Figure 7: Domain 1: Item-Specific Findings
Section 5: Domain 2 Findings
Domain 2: Measurement and use of data to guide community change efforts
Domain 2 is a multifaceted concept, with two subscales measuring community change processes and data use for improvement and accountability. Many place-based initiatives use community mobilization frameworks and population-level prevention models to guide community change processes. These processes involve: specifying the condition that needs to be changed; developing a feasible strategy based on sound theory, evidence from research, or experience for how to affect that condition; creating an action plan and implementing it well; and tracking progress toward specified outcome(s).
Collective initiatives benefit from using data to monitor and improve their efforts through a continuous learning orientation. This learning orientation involves seeking and responding to feedback as well as adapting to shifting contextual conditions. The Pop Change case studies documented strategies for data measurement and use, which included: involving residents in making sense of data; fostering community partnerships through data sharing; and gaining situational awareness through the use of community data.
On items measuring Domain 2, (the use of data to guide community change efforts), the average Population Change score for the overall domain scale was 3.737 (s.d. = 0.729). The Pop Change average on the “community change process” subscale was 3.795 (s.d. = 0.796). Similarly, on the “data” subscale, the Population Change average was 3.711 (s.d. = 0.758) (see Figure 8 and Appendix Table A-6).
Most network members agreed that the network has enough capacity to analyze data for decision- making and uses data to identify local assets and issues. Roughly two-thirds of survey respondents agreed at least “somewhat” that their network has enough capacity and expertise to analyze and use data for decision-making. However, nearly one in five (17.65 percent) indicated that they “didn’t know”, and an additional 7.65 percent did not respond to this item. Nearly two-thirds (74.2 percent) of survey
respondents agreed at least “somewhat” that their network uses data to identify local assets, issues, and disparities for community planning purposes related to its vision. More than 12 percent indicated that they “didn’t know” if this was the case, and a further 7.65 percent did not respond to this item.
Most network members agreed that the network shares data in an accessible way. Nearly three- quarters (73.5 percent) of survey respondents agreed at least “somewhat” that the network shares data in accessible, easy-to-read, and understandable formats. Additionally, nine percent indicated that they “didn’t know” and 7.65 percent did not respond to this item (see Figure 9 and Appendix Table A-7).
Domain 3: Active engagement in community change efforts
Domain 3 is a multifaceted concept measuring diverse engagement and empowerment. Community engagement is an essential component of community change efforts. Engaging those who are most affected by an issue results in solutions that are appropriate and compatible with the population being served. Engaging both the most and least powerful people in a community also creates opportunities to work together, addressing community priorities for action and impediments to change among local organizations and institutions. Community engagement also increases the potential impact of other community building initiatives by changing the nature of the relationship between a community and its power brokers going forward, ensuring neighborhood residents will be at future meetings, on corporate boards, and in city council chambers. The Pop Change case studies’ strategies for active engagement included helping community groups move from planning to action as well as training people to gain the knowledge and skills to do collective work.
On items measuring Domain 3 (active engagement in community change efforts), the average score for all Population Change sites was 3.906 (s.d. = 0.623). The items in the “engagement” subscale are the same as those in the domain overall (see Figure 10 and Appendix Table A-8).
Nearly all network members agreed that network meetings are inclusive and support participation, networking, and collective action. Nearly 85 percent of network members who responded to the survey agreed at least “somewhat” that network meetings are inclusive and support participation, networking, and collective action, including nearly two-thirds of respondents who agreed “completely” or “a great deal.” About eight (8.24) percent of survey participants did not respond to this item.
Most network members agreed that people in the community actively participate in network events and that they can take advantage of network leadership opportunities. Over 80 percent of survey participants agreed at least “somewhat” that people in the community actively participate in the
network-related events. Similarly, more than three-quarters agreed at least “somewhat” that the network makes leadership opportunities available to people in the community (see Figure 11 and Appendix Table A-9).
Domain 4: Distributed leadership of equity-focused community change efforts
Domain 4 is a multifaceted concept, with three subscales measuring: leadership, communication, and an equity focus. Equity refers to the balance of power among the organizations that are working collectively to address inequitable conditions. In ideal cross-sector collaborations, no one person or agency monopolizes the power to set goals, shape agendas, or determine key policies or practices. Good internal and external communication across many stakeholders is essential to capacity building because a well-developed communication system promotes information sharing, and discussion and resolution of problems. Pop Change case studies describe strategies that link equity, communications, and shared leadership. These strategies involve: building diverse resident voice and power through shared leadership; building community connections through communications strategies; conducting community meetings that support inclusive participation, networking, and self-organizing; and shared leadership that is not dominated by any organization or sector.
On items measuring Domain 4 (distributed leadership of equity focused community change efforts), the average score for all Population Change sites was 3.744 (s.d. = 0.728) sites. On the “communications” subscale, the Pop Change average was 3.696 (s.d. = 0.789). Similarly, on the “leadership” subscale, the Pop Change average was 3.736 (s.d. = 0.811). On the “equity” subscale, the Pop Change average was 3.805 (s.d. = 0.759) (see Figure 12 and Appendix Table A-10).
While network members agreed that a core team facilitates network processes, most also believed that network leadership of network meetings, decision-making processes and recruitment is shared. More than three-quarters of survey respondents agreed at least “somewhat” that a core team facilitates network processes (10 percent indicated that they “didn’t know” and a further 8.8 percent did not respond to this item). At the same time, most network members also agreed at least “somewhat” that leadership of network meetings (62.4 percent), decision-making processes (67.7 percent), and network member recruitment and coordination (60.0) was shared (see Figure 13 and Appendix Table A-11).
Domain 5: Effective, innovative community change programs, policies, and practices
Domain 5 is a multifaceted concept measuring multi-level community change strategies. Community initiatives have started using social-ecological frameworks that target change at individual, program, system, and policy levels. However, potentially synergistic programs and activities need to be aligned strategically in order to achieve the greatest impact. Intentional linkages between efforts are more likely to lead to lasting impact. Interventions that integrate formal programs with informal supports and the resources of self-organized groups are especially powerful. The Pop Change case studies identified
strategies for effective implementation of community programs, policies, and practices. These included maintaining a strong network of institutions, organizations, and community residents to implement change, and structuring program improvement processes that use iterative cycles of data-informed action and reflection.
On items measuring Domain 5 (effective, innovative community change programs, policies, and practices), the average score for all Population Change sites was 3.641 (s.d. = 0.660). The items in the “multilevel” subscale are the same as those in the domain overall (see Figure 14 and Appendix Table A-12).
Nearly all network members agreed at least somewhat that the network and people in the community work together to change community norms. More than three-quarters of survey respondents (77.7 percent) agreed at least “somewhat” that the network and people in the community work together to change community norms that are related to its vision. Nearly 10 percent did not respond to this item.
Most network members agreed that the network mobilizes allies successfully to advocate for policy change related to its vision. The majority of survey participants (60.6 percent) agreed “completely” or “a great deal” that the network mobilizes allies successfully to advocate for policy changes. One in five survey respondents (20 percent) indicated that they “didn’t know” or felt the item was “not applicable.” Another 9.4 percent did not respond to this item (see Figure 15 and Appendix Table A-13).
Domain 6: Infrastructure to Support Sustain, and Spread Community Change
Domain 6 is a multifaceted concept, with two subscales measuring the scale of work and sustainable infrastructure. Even effective community change strategies cannot have a lasting, community-wide impact unless they are implemented at sufficient breadth (scale) and depth (scope) to reach their target population, and are sustained over time. Delivering positive impact over time requires community will and accountability to create and maintain a dose-sufficient approach of sufficient population reach, strength or intensity, and duration. Several elements are needed to successfully achieve scale, including: an initiative designed to achieve community-level results, delivery of dosages appropriate to conditions of extreme disadvantage, and funding proportionate to the effort’s goals. The Pop Change case studies identified several strategies for working collectively at scale. These were: leveraging and aligning resources and policies to invest deeply in community change; planning to implement solutions at a community-wide scale; and sustaining the network’s infrastructure with local, tribal, state, and national funding from public and private sources.
Domain Subscale, Network- and Community-Specific Findings
On items measuring Domain 6 (the network’s infrastructure to support, sustain, and spread community change), the average overall domain scale score for all Population Change sites was 3.107 (s.d. = 0.81). On the “scale of work” subscale, the Pop Change mean was 3.347 (s.d. =
0.792). Similarly, on the “infrastructure” subscale, the Population Change average was 2.976 (s.d. = 0.937) (see Figure 16 and Appendix Table A-14).
Most members were not sure whether or not their network had enough funding and volunteers to carry out work related to its vision. Roughly one-quarter (24.1 percent) of survey respondents agreed “hardly at all” or “not at all” that the network has enough funding to carry out work related to its vision; nearly 30 percent “didn’t know” if the network had enough funding. Nearly one in five survey participants (18.2 percent) agreed “hardly at all”, or “not at all” that the network had enough volunteers to carry out work related to its vision; 22.4 percent indicated that they “don’t know.” Moreover, in response to whether there were sufficient funds to sustain network operations, nearly 40 percent (38.24) responded that they “didn’t know”, more than one-third (37.7 percent) agreed only “somewhat”, “hardly at all”, or “not at all.”
Most network members agreed at least somewhat that community efforts are working at a large enough scale and that they are able to expand successful programs. Two-thirds of survey participants (66.5 percent) agreed at least “somewhat” that community efforts are working at a scale large enough to improve community-wide trends (8.8 percent “didn’t know”). Similarly, 66.5 percent respondents agreed at least “somewhat” that community efforts are able to expand successful programs and practices that are related to its vision (22 respondents “didn’t know”) (see Figure 17 and Appendix Table A-15).
Appendix: Population Change C3 Survey Tables
The tables below present the mean scores and their standard deviations for each domain and subscale, as well as each individual item comprising a given subscale. These results are presented for the Population Change networks as well as the average across all Population Change sites. The scale (or Cronbach’s) alpha is reported for all sites.
Section 2: Demographics Tables
All Sites % n
Are you part of an organization? Yes 91.18 155 No 4.12 7 Non-response 4.71 8
Total 100.00 170 What is your relationship to COMMUNITY? (Respondents can choose more than one) Staff 8.24 14 Leadership 28.82 49 Network member 68.24 116 Community member 40.00 68 Other 16.47 28 How many years have you or your organization been involved in NETWORK? Less than six months 1.76 3 Six to twelve months 2.94 5 1 to 2 years 20.00 34 3 to 4 years 24.71 42 5 to 6 years 16.47 28 7 to 9 years 11.76 20 10 years or more 16.47 28 Non-response 5.88 10
Total 100.00 170
Table A-2: Areas of Activity
All Sites
% n Education and Training Early childhood education 41.18 70 Childcare 18.24 31 Elementary education 19.41 33 Secondary education 22.35 38 Postsecondary education 12.35 21 Workforce development or training 35.88 61 Law Enforcement and Legal System Law enforcement 4.71 8 Courts, corrections, or legal services 14.12 24 Youth justice services 13.53 23 Health and Social Services Healthcare 18.82 32 Public health 27.06 46 Mental health services 30.00 51 Substance abuse treatment 11.76 20 Healthy youth development or risk reduction efforts 30.59 52 Food assistance 15.88 27 Housing assistance 20.59 35 Financial assistance (e.g., SNAP, TANF) 11.76 20 Social services (e.g., family social services, child welfare services)
40.59 69
Family Assistance Community organizing or development 46.47 79 Philanthropy 10.00 17 Civic or social advocacy 26.47 45 Other 14.12 24 Note: Respondents could select more than one activity, both within and across areas. Note: Respondents could select more than one activity, both within and across areas, so percentages will not add to 100. Percentages in each cell are based on the number of surveys submitted by Population Change network members, including partial, or incomplete, submissions: N=[30] for [site name] and N=170 for All Sites.
Section 3: Social Network Table
Table A-3: Network Connections
Site name Nodes Edges Density Reciprocity Transitivity Degree Centralization
Boston 23 74 0.15 0.46 0.41 0.3 Brooklyn 14 44 0.24 0.59 0.49 0.36 Los Angeles 30 133 0.15 0.36 0.42 0.36 Mat-su Borough 30 219 0.25 0.49 0.56 0.26 Milwaukee 19 112 0.33 0.46 0.63 0.33 San Antonio 13 73 0.47 0.55 0.69 0.26 Surrey 19 0.35 0.63 0.61 0.4
Section 4: Domain 1 Tables
Table A-4: Domain 1: Overall Domain, Subscale, Network- and Community-Specific Findings
Domain 1: Collaboration to create and practice a shared vision All Sites
Mean (SD) Scale Alpha Overall Domain 4.079 (0.58) 0.867 COMMUNITY has many partnerships that work across sectors (such as education, health, justice, housing, and social services) to support VISION.
3.894 (0.741)
People in COMMUNITY support NETWORK efforts that are related to VISION.
3.910 (0.799)
NETWORK members have trust in each other to work together when it counts related to VISION.
4.116 (0.79)
NETWORK members believe that, together, they can make a difference in ways that are related to VISION.
4.338 (0.631)
As NETWORK members, we hold each other accountable for group agreements that are related to VISION.
3.761 (0.806)
NETWORK members share an ongoing commitment to VISION. 4.397 (0.694)
Partnership Subscale 4.003 (0.628) 0.516 COMMUNITY has many partnerships that work across sectors (such as education, health, justice, housing, and social services) to support VISION.
3.894 (0.741)
NETWORK members have trust in each other to work together when it counts related to VISION.
4.116 (0.79)
Shared Goals Subscale 4.122 (0.601) 0.818 People in COMMUNITY support NETWORK efforts that are related to VISION.
3.910 (0.799)
4.338 (0.631)
3.761 (0.806)
Domain 1: Collaboration to create and practice a shared vision All Sites
Mean (SD) Scale Alpha Community Questions 3.904 (0.68) 0.696 COMMUNITY has many partnerships that work across sectors (such as education, health, justice, housing, and social services) to support VISION.
3.894 (0.741)
People in COMMUNITY support NETWORK efforts that are related to VISION.
3.910 (0.799)
Network Questions 4.172 (0.622) 0.853 NETWORK members have trust in each other to work together when it counts related to VISION.
4.116 (0.79)
4.338 (0.631)
3.761 (0.806)
Notes: The scale is defined as follows: 5: Completely, 4: A great deal, 3: Somewhat, 2: Hardly at all, 1: Not at all. N indicates the number of surveys submitted at each site, including partial, or incomplete, submissions. SD is the standard error associated with each mean. The Scale Alpha, or Cronbach's Alpha, measures the reliability, internal consistency, of each domain or subdomain.
Table A-5: Domain 1: Item-specific Findings
All Sites
% n COMMUNITY has many partnerships that work across sectors (such as education, health, justice, housing, and social services) to support VISION. Completely 17.65 30 A great deal 46.47 79 Somewhat 22.35 38 Hardly at all 2.35 4 Not at all 0.00 0 Don't know 2.35 4 Not applicable 1.18 2 Valid skip 0.59 1 Non-response 7.06 12
Total 100.00 170 People in COMMUNITY support NETWORK efforts that are related to VISION. Completely 20.00 34 A great deal 41.18 70 Somewhat 20.59 35 Hardly at all 3.53 6 Not at all 0.00 0 Don't know 5.29 9 Not applicable 1.76 3 Valid skip 0.59 1 Non-response 7.06 12
Total 100.00 170
All Sites
% n NETWORK members have trust in each other to work together when it counts related to VISION. Completely 29.41 50 A great deal 40.59 69 Somewhat 13.53 23 Hardly at all 2.94 5 Not at all 0.00 0 Don't know 4.71 8 Not applicable 1.18 2 Valid skip 0.59 1 Non-response 7.06 12
Total 100.00 170 NETWORK members believe that, together, they can make a difference in ways that are related to VISION. Completely 37.65 64 A great deal 43.53 74 Somewhat 7.65 13 Hardly at all 0.00 0 Not at all 0.00 0 Don't know 2.35 4 Not applicable 1.18 2 Valid skip 0.59 1 Non-response 7.06 12
Total 100.00 170 As NETWORK members, we hold each other accountable for group agreements that are related to VISION. Completely 13.53 23 A great deal 37.06 63 Somewhat 24.71 42 Hardly at all 2.94 5 Not at all 0.59 1 Don't know 9.41 16 Not applicable 4.12 7 Valid skip 0.59 1 Non-response 7.06 12
Total 100.00 170
All Sites
% n NETWORK members share an ongoing commitment to VISION. Completely 45.29 77 A great deal 34.12 58 Somewhat 8.82 15 Hardly at all 0.59 1 Not at all 0.00 0 Don't know 1.18 2 Not applicable 2.35 4 Valid skip 0.59 1 Non-response 7.06 12
Total 100.00 170
Table A-6: Domain 2: Overall Domain, Subscale, Network and Community-Specific Findings
All Sites Mean (SD) Scale Alpha
Overall Domain 3.737 (0.729) 0.946 NETWORK uses community problem solving approaches (such as community mobilization and strategic prevention) with people in COMMUNITY.
3.903 (0.884)
NETWORK and people in COMMUNITY work together to review relevant research to develop a road map for collective action.
3.698 (0.89)
NETWORK and people in COMMUNITY work together to develop a clear theory of change that guides collective action and ongoing learning related to VISION.
3.762 (0.896)
NETWORK and people in COMMUNITY are actively engaged in the process of planning which data are needed to implement and improve community change efforts.
3.781 (0.929)
NETWORK and people in COMMUNITY are actively engaged in the process of collecting data to implement and improve community change efforts.
3.683 (0.933)
NETWORK and people in COMMUNITY are actively engaged in the process of interpreting and using data to implement and improve community change efforts.
3.664 (0.926)
NETWORK has access to the data sources and systems needed to track its progress and identify successes and failures.
3.762 (0.814)
NETWORK has enough capacity and expertise to analyze and use data for decision-making.
3.736 (0.943)
NETWORK uses data to identify local assets, issues, and disparities for community planning purposes that are related to VISION.
3.828 (0.845)
NETWORK uses evaluation methods to test promising programs and practices that are related to VISION.
3.619 (0.951)
NETWORK shares data in accessible, easy to read, and understandable formats (such as briefs, post cards, community meetings).
3.705 (0.951)
Community Change Process Subscale 3.795 (0.796) 0.919 NETWORK uses community problem solving approaches (such as community mobilization and strategic prevention) with people in COMMUNITY.
3.903 (0.884)
3.698 (0.89)
3.762 (0.896)
3.781 (0.929)
Data Subscale 3.711 (0.758) 0.916 NETWORK and people in COMMUNITY are actively engaged in the process of collecting data to implement and improve community change efforts.
3.683 (0.933)
3.664 (0.926)
NETWORK has access to the data sources and systems needed to track its progress and identify successes and failures.
3.762 (0.814)
3.736 (0.943)
3.828 (0.845)
3.619 (0.951)
3.705 (0.951)
Community Questions 3.757 (0.786) 0.939 NETWORK uses community problem solving approaches (such as community mobilization and strategic prevention) with people in COMMUNITY.
3.903 (0.884)
3.698 (0.89)
3.762 (0.896)
3.781 (0.929)
NETWORK and people in COMMUNITY are actively engaged in the process of collecting data to implement and improve community change efforts.
3.683 (0.933)
3.664 (0.926)
Network Questions 3.724 (0.775) 0.890 NETWORK has access to the data sources and systems needed to track its progress and identify successes and failures.
3.762 (0.814)
3.736 (0.943)
3.828 (0.845)
3.619 (0.951)
3.705 (0.951)
All Sites % n
NETWORK uses community problem solving approaches (such as community mobilization and strategic prevention) with people in COMMUNITY. Completely 21.76 37 A great deal 40.00 68 Somewhat 18.24 31 Hardly at all 4.12 7 Not at all 1.18 2 Don't know 6.47 11 Not applicable 0.59 1 Valid skip 0.00 0 Non-response 7.65 13
Total 100.00 170 NETWORK and people in COMMUNITY work together to review relevant research to develop a road map for collective action. Completely 15.29 26 A great deal 32.94 56 Somewhat 28.82 49 Hardly at all 2.94 5 Not at all 1.76 3 Don't know 10.00 17 Not applicable 0.59 1 Valid skip 0.00 0 Non-response 7.65 13
Total 100.00 170
All Sites % n
NETWORK and people in COMMUNITY work together to develop a clear theory of change that guides collective action and ongoing learning related to VISION. Completely 16.47 28 A great deal 38.24 65 Somewhat 24.71 42 Hardly at all 2.35 4 Not at all 2.35 4 Don't know 7.06 12 Not applicable 0.59 1 Valid skip 0.59 1 Non-response 7.65 13
Total 100.00 170 NETWORK and people in COMMUNITY are actively engaged in the process of planning which data are needed to implement and improve community change efforts. Completely 17.65 30 A great deal 35.29 60 Somewhat 22.35 38 Hardly at all 2.94 5 Not at all 2.35 4 Don't know 10.59 18 Not applicable 0.59 1 Valid skip 0.59 1 Non-response 7.65 13
Total 100.00 170 NETWORK and people in COMMUNITY are actively engaged in the process of collecting data to implement and improve community change efforts. Completely 15.88 27 A great deal 33.53 57 Somewhat 24.12 41 Hardly at all 7.06 12 Not at all 1.18 2 Don't know 10.00 17 Not applicable 0.59 1 Valid skip 0.00 0 Non-response 7.65 13
Total 100.00 170
All Sites % n
NETWORK and people in COMMUNITY are actively engaged in the process of interpreting and using data to implement and improve community change efforts. Completely 15.29 26 A great deal 31.76 54 Somewhat 25.88 44 Hardly at all 6.47 11 Not at all 1.18 2 Don't know 11.18 19 Not applicable 0.59 1 Valid skip 0.00 0 Non-response 7.65 13
Total 100.00 170 NETWORK has access to the data sources and systems needed to track its progress and identify successes and failures. Completely 13.53 23 A great deal 31.18 53 Somewhat 23.53 40 Hardly at all 3.53 6 Not at all 0.00 0 Don't know 18.24 31 Not applicable 1.18 2 Valid skip 1.18 2 Non-response 7.65 13
Total 100.00 170 NETWORK has enough capacity and expertise to analyze and use data for decision- making. Completely 16.47 28 A great deal 29.41 50 Somewhat 20.00 34 Hardly at all 7.06 12 Not at all 0.59 1 Don't know 17.65 30 Not applicable 0.00 0 Valid skip 1.18 2 Non-response 7.65 13
Total 100.00 170
All Sites % n
NETWORK uses data to identify local assets, issues, and disparities for community planning purposes that are related to VISION. Completely 16.47 28 A great deal 37.65 64 Somewhat 20.00 34 Hardly at all 4.12 7 Not at all 0.59 1 Don't know 12.35 21 Not applicable 0.00 0 Valid skip 1.18 2 Non-response 7.65 13
Total 100.00 170 NETWORK uses evaluation methods to test promising programs and practices that are related to VISION. Completely 11.76 20 A great deal 28.82 49 Somewhat 21.18 36 Hardly at all 5.88 10 Not at all 1.76 3 Don't know 21.18 36 Not applicable 0.59 1 Valid skip 1.18 2 Non-response 7.65 13
Total 100.00 170 NETWORK shares data in accessible, easy to read, and understandable formats (such as briefs, post cards, community meetings). Completely 18.82 32 A great deal 28.82 49 Somewhat 25.88 44 Hardly at all 7.65 13 Not at all 0.59 1 Don't know 8.82 15 Not applicable 0.59 1 Valid skip 1.18 2 Non-response 7.65 13
Total 100.00 170
Section 6: Domain 3 Tables
Domain 3: Active engagement in community change efforts All Sites
Mean (SD) Scale Alpha Overall Domain 3.906 (0.623) 0.875 NETWORK brings the right people and the right sectors together for work related to VISION.
3.993 (0.801)
People in COMMUNITY are actively engaged as leaders in community change efforts related to VISION.
3.805 (0.864)
NETWORK members work closely with large institutions, (such as school districts, businesses, and government agencies) in COMMUNITY to support VISION.
3.857 (0.868)
NETWORK and people in COMMUNITY collaborate through clusters or hubs of activity.
3.839 (0.802)
NETWORK meetings are inclusive, supporting participation, networking, and collective action.
4.195 (0.811)
NETWORK makes leadership opportunities available to people in COMMUNITY in work that is related to VISION.
3.887 (0.908)
Engagement Subscale 3.906 (0.623) 0.875 NETWORK brings the right people and the right sectors together for work related to VISION.
3.993 (0.801)
3.805 (0.864)
3.857 (0.868)
3.839 (0.802)
4.195 (0.811)
3.887 (0.908)
Community Questions 3.874 (0.668) 0.826 NETWORK brings the right people and the right sectors together for work related to VISION.
3.993 (0.801)
3.805 (0.864)
3.857 (0.868)
3.839 (0.802)
Network Questions 3.934 (0.675) 0.772 People in COMMUNITY actively participate in NETWORK-related events. 3.705 (0.706)
4.195 (0.811)
3.887 (0.908)
All Sites % n
NETWORK brings the right people and the right sectors together for work related to VISION. Completely 23.53 40 A great deal 45.29 77 Somewhat 18.24 31 Hardly at all 1.18 2 Not at all 1.18 2 Don't know 1.18 2 Not applicable 1.18 2 Valid skip 0.59 1 Non-response 7.65 13
Total 100.00 170 People in COMMUNITY are actively engaged as leaders in community change efforts related to VISION. Completely 18.82 32 A great deal 42.35 72 Somewhat 22.94 39 Hardly at all 5.88 10 Not at all 0.59 1 Don't know 0.59 1 Not applicable 0.00 0 Valid skip 1.18 2 Non-response 7.65 13
Total 100.00 170 NETWORK members work closely with large institutions, (such as school districts, businesses, and government agencies) in COMMUNITY to support VISION. Completely 20.59 35 A great deal 38.82 66 Somewhat 21.76 37 Hardly at all 4.71 8 Not at all 0.59 1 Don't know 4.12 7 Not applicable 0.59 1 Valid skip 1.18 2 Non-response 7.65 13
Total 100.00 170
All Sites % n
NETWORK and people in COMMUNITY collaborate through clusters or hubs of activity. Completely 15.29 26 A great deal 44.12 75 Somewhat 22.35 38 Hardly at all 0.59 1 Not at all 1.76 3 Don't know 5.88 10 Not applicable 1.18 2 Valid skip 1.18 2 Non-response 7.65 13
Total 100.00 170 People in COMMUNITY actively participate in NETWORK-related events. Completely 8.82 15 A great deal 46.47 79 Somewhat 27.06 46 Hardly at all 3.53 6 Not at all 0.00 0 Don't know 4.12 7 Not applicable 0.59 1 Valid skip 1.18 2 Non-response 8.24 14
Total 100.00 170 NETWORK meetings are inclusive, supporting participation, networking, and collective action. Completely 33.53 57 A great deal 41.76 71 Somewhat 9.41 16 Hardly at all 1.76 3 Not at all 1.18 2 Don't know 2.94 5 Not applicable 0.00 0 Valid skip 1.18 2 Non-response 8.24 14
Total 100.00 170
All Sites % n
NETWORK makes leadership opportunities available to people in COMMUNITY in work that is related to VISION. Completely 21.18 36 A great deal 39.41 67 Somewhat 16.47 28 Hardly at all 5.29 9 Not at all 1.18 2 Don't know 7.06 12 Not applicable 0.00 0 Valid skip 1.18 2 Non-response 8.24 14
Total 100.00 170
Domain 4: Distributed leadership of equity focused community change efforts
Overall Domain 3.744 (0.728) 0.927 NETWORK and people in COMMUNITY work to address social, economic, and cultural barriers to VISION.
3.927 (0.758)
Power is shared between NETWORK and people in COMMUNITY in the community's best interests.
3.647 (1.0)
NETWORK and people in COMMUNITY are recognized in public events and local media for their respective contributions to work that is related to VISION.
3.454 (1.052)
NETWORK members are well informed about what is going on with NETWORK. 3.776 (0.891)
NETWORK members communicate openly with each other about work that is related to VISION.
3.891 (0.855)
NETWORK effectively resolves conflicts and balances power among its members.
3.729 (0.907)
NETWORK is not dominated by any one organization or sector. 3.706 (1.103)
A core team facilitates NETWORK processes (meetings, decision making, membership, resources, and communications).
4.133 (0.771)
NETWORK members share leadership of member recruitment and coordination. 3.681 (0.909)
NETWORK members share leadership of network resource management. 3.701 (0.849)
NETWORK members share leadership of internal and external communications. 3.541 (0.932)
Communications Subscale 3.696 (0.789) 0.765 NETWORK and people in COMMUNITY are recognized in public events and local media for their respective contributions to work that is related to VISION.
3.454 (1.052)
3.891 (0.855)
Domain 4: Distributed leadership of equity focused community change efforts
Leadership Subscale 3.736 (0.811) 0.898 NETWORK is not dominated by any one organization or sector. 3.706 (1.103)
4.133 (0.771)
Equity Subscale 3.805 (0.759) 0.835 NETWORK and people in COMMUNITY work to address social, economic, and cultural barriers to VISION.
3.927 (0.758)
3.647 (1.0)
3.729 (0.907)
Network Questions 3.744 (0.728) 0.927 NETWORK and people in COMMUNITY work to address social, economic, and cultural barriers to VISION.
3.927 (0.758)
3.647 (1.0)
NETWORK and people in COMMUNITY are recognized in public events and local media for their respective contributions to work that is related to VISION.
3.454 (1.052)
3.891 (0.855)
3.729 (0.907)
NETWORK is not dominated by any one organization or sector. 3.706 (1.103)
4.133 (0.771)
All Sites % n
NETWORK and people in COMMUNITY work to address social, economic, and cultural barriers to VISION. Completely 19.41 33 A great deal 45.88 78 Somewhat 21.76 37 Hardly at all 1.18 2 Not at all 0.59 1 Don't know 1.18 2 Not applicable 0.59 1 Valid skip 1.18 2 Non-response 8.24 14 Total 100.00 170 Power is shared between NETWORK and people in COMMUNITY in the community's best interests. Completely 17.06 29 A great deal 28.24 48 Somewhat 27.06 46 Hardly at all 4.71 8 Not at all 2.94 5 Don't know 10.00 17 Not applicable 0.59 1 Valid skip 1.18 2 Non-response 8.24 14 Total 100.00 170 NETWORK and people in COMMUNITY are recognized in public events and local media for their respective contributions to work that is related to VISION. Completely 14.12 24 A great deal 27.65 47 Somewhat 25.88 44 Hardly at all 12.35 21 Not at all 2.94 5 Don't know 6.47 11 Not applicable 1.18 2 Valid skip 1.18 2 Non-response 8.24 14 Total 100.00 170
All Sites % n
NETWORK members are well informed about what is going on with NETWORK. Completely 15.88 27 A great deal 41.18 70 Somewhat 21.76 37 Hardly at all 2.94 5 Not at all 2.35 4 Don't know 7.06 12 Not applicable 0.00 0 Valid skip 0.00 0 Non-response 8.82 15 Total 100.00 170 NETWORK members communicate openly with each other about work that is related to VISION. Completely 19.41 33 A great deal 37.65 64 Somewhat 20.00 34 Hardly at all 2.35 4 Not at all 1.18 2 Don't know 10.59 18 Not applicable 0.00 0 Valid skip 0.00 0 Non-response 8.82 15 Total 100.00 170 NETWORK effectively resolves conflicts and balances power among its members. Completely 11.76 20 A great deal 28.24 48 Somewhat 18.82 32 Hardly at all 2.35 4 Not at all 1.76 3 Don't know 27.06 46 Not applicable 1.18 2 Valid skip 0.00 0 Non-response 8.82 15 Total 100.00 170 NETWORK is not dominated by any one organization or sector. Completely 18.24 31 A great deal 30.00 51 Somewhat 16.47 28 Hardly at all 4.71 8 Not at all 4.71 8 Don't know 15.88 27 Not applicable 1.18 2 Valid skip 0.00 0 Non-response 8.82 15 Total 100.00 170
All Sites % n
A core team facilitates NETWORK processes (meetings, decision making, membership, resources, and communications). Completely 27.06 46 A great deal 38.24 65 Somewhat 11.76 20 Hardly at all 2.35 4 Not at all 0.00 0 Don't know 10.00 17 Not applicable 1.18 2 Valid skip 0.59 1 Non-response 8.82 15 Total 100.00 170 NETWORK members share leadership of network meetings. Completely 15.29 26 A great deal 27.06 46 Somewhat 20.00 34 Hardly at all 7.06 12 Not at all 1.18 2 Don't know 18.82 32 Not applicable 1.18 2 Valid skip 0.59 1 Non-response 8.82 15 Total 100.00 170 NETWORK members share leadership of decision-making processes. Completely 16.47 28 A great deal 37.65 64 Somewhat 13.53 23 Hardly at all 2.35 4 Not at all 1.18 2 Do

All Sites: C3 Survey Report - NORC.org

Documents

Transcript of All Sites: C3 Survey Report - NORC.org